_Newt Gingrich’s response in last night’s debate to his ex-wife’s allegations that he asked for an “open” marriage showed his amazing ability to simultaneously bully others and portray himself as a victim.Gingrich told moderator John King he was “appalled” by the choice of subject, saying“I think the destructive vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office.”He also accused the "elite media" of protecting President Obama by attacking Republicans.His comments fired up the audience. But other than going after votes for the South Carolina primary, what was he really saying?He was appalled by the choice of subject?Gingrich is not a private citizen, who under similar circumstances would likely have grounds to complain of an invasion of privacy.Gingrich has been a public figure for thirty years and has attacked other politicians, including former President Clinton, for private conduct.If questions like King’s make it harder to attract people to run for office, that might be just as well.How would a President Gingrich respond to the leader of another nation (like China) whom he thought had insulted him?And blaming the media?This same media brings Newt Gingrich to our television sets, radios and Internet sites on a regular basis and quotes him frequently.Does Gingrich believe the media helps Obama in this regard?On second thought, Newt, keep talking.Your inane comments may be exactly what Obama needs to get re-elected!

At least, that is what many of my high school classmates told me. He was the reason for the economic recovery that started in early 1984, the fact that we were not at war with anyone and the resurgence of “morality” in our nation.

When I disagreed, arguments ensued. The arguments would always revolve around Reagan and what my “problem” was.

I would say I did not agree with the arms buildup under Reagan. Then I would get a response like:

“These weapons protect us! Reagan is tough on communists.”

Of course, after I left high school, Reagan made an arms-reduction deal with the Soviet Union.

I said I did not like the strike on Libya that Reagan authorized in April 1986. He did so in retaliation for what he believed were Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy’s terrorist activities. The classmates first pummeled me with their fists before the teacher arrived in one of my classes. They told me we needed to be tough on terrorists.

Of course, after I left high school, an investigation revealed that the Reagan Administration illegally shipped weapons to Iran, designated by the State Department as a terrorist state. This is now known as the Iran-Contra affair because the profits were diverted to the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua.

My suspicion that the nation was not being told the whole story about the President’s mental faculties fell on deaf ears. I guess that is why people even then called him the “Teflon President.”

Of course, after I left high school, Reagan acknowledged that he had Alzheimer’s disease. And now, in his new book, Reagan’s son Ron, Jr. admits that his father may have had this problem during his time in the White House.

Support for Reagan during those years I was in high school was comparable to idolatry. Instead of evaluating his policies, my classmates blindly followed them.

Over twenty-five years later, little has changed. Republicans still view Reagan as anti-communist, anti-terrorist and the epitome of patriotism. The facts don’t seem to matter.

As we approach the one hundredth birthday of President Reagan, we can expect to hear the same rhetoric from his supporters. As they did at his funeral in 2004, they will say that he “won the Cold War” (implying that the seven presidents before him did not contribute), that he was a “tax fighter” (he raised taxes sixteen times during his two terms) and that he belongs on Mount Rushmore (well, some say he was a big bust!).

Now would be a great time to talk of the real Ronald Reagan. He was not as bad as Democrats would say, nor as good as the Republicans believe.

Other presidents can and should learn from the mistake he made in keeping our soldiers in Beirut before a terrorist killed over two hundred of them. There are some places that not even peacekeepers belong.

They could learn from his use of humor to defuse difficult situations. Troubled by accusations he was too old for another term, he knocked out any chance that Mondale could make a race of it by saying he would not make an issue out of his opponent’s youth and inexperience.

But to suggest that any leader is without fault opens us to a false argument in which some participants defend a point of view without understanding it. Even high school students should know better than that.

In his book, Secrecy and Privilege, Robert Parry quotes the late Keith Fuller, general manager of Associated Press, as saying:

""I think a nation is crying, "Enough.'A nation is saying, "We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims.We don't believe that the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation.We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics"but most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs." (205)

Fuller was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 when he made this statement.Over the years, I have heard similar things said by Republicans who try to explain Democratic ideas.It is bad enough that they, like Fuller, claim to speak on behalf of the "nation" or the "people."

But what is worse is that they mischaracterize some points of view and flat out distort others. So I made a dialogue between this kind of Republican and me.

"We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims."

That's funny.Neither do I and neither does anyone else I know.

Maybe you are talking about the rights of defendants.I believe that a person is innocent unless proven guilty and deserves the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, such as the right not to be a witness against themselves, the right to counsel, the right to due process, etc.

If you want the rights of victims to take precedence over these rights, first ask yourself how you would feel if you were put under arrest.

"We don't believe the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation."

You probably have a different concept of creation than I do.That's OK.But what is not OK is a society where my wife and I have the right to marry one another and two other people are not allowed that right.

And please do not give me a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will wind up allowing people to marry animals or any other absurdity.The movement to allow same-sex marriage simply would allow two people of the same sex the same rights as a man and a woman.

"We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics."

I don't believe this, either.However, it is not what you say, but what you imply.

Some people simply cannot work.Other people have trouble finding work.Still others would rather take a welfare check than work.And some of those on welfare do abuse drugs, including alcohol.

But how do we monitor those on welfare so they do not engage in this kind of behavior?Do you want to add more bureaucrats to check on them?(Just asking!)

I assume you are talking about the government.I've got news for you: have you ever been to a typical corporation?They have a bureaucracy, too.You don't apply for a job at Costco by going to the Customer Complaint line, do you?

It sounds like you are saying that you want the government off your back.What, exactly, does our government force you to do?Pay your taxes, serve on jury duty and"it used to force men to submit to the draft.

If you don't like what your government is doing, remember that most government is local.Go tell your city council what you think about regulations, taxes, fees, etc.

Oh yeah, there would be a problem if you want fewer bureaucrats: no one would be there to listen to you tell them what you are sick of!

Typically, history is written by the winners. But the Republicans often like to write history for us, anyway. Here is what a Republican might say about the following, which will be worth remembering if they get back into power:

President Carter: They say he was weak on foreign policy, especially in Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 and in Iran, where United States embassy workers were taken hostage by followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini the same year.President Reagan: - He was tough in foreign policy. Other nations were afraid of him.Fact check: Reagan continued Carter's Afghanistan policy by using the CIA to support the anti-communists there. Reagan secretly sold weapons to Iran in the hopes of getting back hostages held by pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon.

Tax cuts: They say that tax cuts, GOP-style, are good for our economy.Fact check: The wealthy certainly benefited from Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts. However, they have contributed to the budget deficit and debt which the Republicans now decide they don't like. It should also be noted that the economy improved after President Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993.

President Clinton: They say he lied under oath and that he deserved to be impeached and should have been removed from office.Fact check: Clinton lied under oath at a deposition for which he was a party. That is not a crime. The Constitution calls for impeachment for "Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors." There was no impeachable offense.

2000 Election: They say that Al Gore kept on trying to change the outcome of an election that he lost.Fact check: Al Gore was entitled under Florida law to an automatic recount by machine and subsequently a hand recount (at his expense) of any county or counties he wanted. He never got either request completed because of the federal courts, who had no business intervening.

Iraq War: They say George W. Bush told the truth about our need to go to war against Iraq.Fact check: The Downing Street Memo, minutes of a meeting held by British ministers, indicate that Bush committed to go to war and justify it by "fixing the facts around the policy."

This is what I have learned from Republicans: that it is OK to lie as long as troops have already been sent in support of the lie; that it is OK to change the law to prove that a Democrat broke it; that the federal government is useless unless it can help fix an election for a Republican; that tax cuts are the answer even before the question is asked; and if someone plays a tough guy in the movies, he must be tough in real life.